1 / 66

Evidence-Based Best Practices for Interactive Online Learning Environments

Evidence-Based Best Practices for Interactive Online Learning Environments. Dr. Curtis J. Bonk Associate Professor, Indiana University President, CourseShare.com http://php.indiana.edu/~cjbonk, cjbonk@indiana.edu. Tons of Recent Research. Not much of it ...is any good.

jadon
Download Presentation

Evidence-Based Best Practices for Interactive Online Learning Environments

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evidence-Based Best Practices for Interactive Online Learning Environments Dr. Curtis J. Bonk Associate Professor, Indiana University President, CourseShare.com http://php.indiana.edu/~cjbonk, cjbonk@indiana.edu

  2. Tons of Recent Research Not much of it ...is any good...

  3. Tasks Overwhelm and confuse Too Nice Due to Limited History Lack Justification Too much data Communities not easy to form Train, be clear, structure due dates Develop roles and controversies Train back up claims Use Email Pals Embed Informal/Social Problems and Solutions(Bonk, Wisher, & Lee, in review)

  4. Shy open up online Minimal off task Delayed collab more rich than real time Students can generate lots of info Minimal disruptions Extensive E-Advice Excited to Publish Use async conferencing Create social tasks Use Async for debates; Sync for help, office hours Structure generation and force reflection/comment Foster debates/critique Find Experts or Prac. Ask Permission Benefits and Implications(Bonk, Wisher, & Lee, in review)

  5. Basic Distance Learning Finding? • Research since 1928 shows that DL students perform as well as their counterparts in a traditional classroom setting. Per: Russell, 1999, The No Significant Difference Phenomenon (5th Edition), NCSU, based on 355 research reports. http://cuda.teleeducation.nb.ca/nosignificantdifference/

  6. Online Learning Research Problems (National Center for Education Statistics, 1999; Phipps & Merisotos, 1999; Wisher et al., 1999). • Anecdotal evidence; minimal theory. • Questionable validity of tests. • Lack of control group. • Hard to compare given different assessment tools and domains. • Fails to explain why the drop-out rates of distance learners are higher. • Does not relate learning styles to different technologies or focus on interaction of multiple technologies.

  7. Online Learning Research Problems(Bonk & Wisher, 2001) • For different purposes or domains: in our study, 13% concern training, 87% education • Flaws in research designs - Only 36% have objective learning measures - Only 45% have comparison groups • When effective, it is difficult to know why - Course design? - Instructional methods? - Technology?

  8. Evaluating Web-Based Instruction: Methods and Findings (41 studies)(Olson & Wisher, in review)

  9. Evaluating Web-Based Instruction: Methods and Findings(Olson & Wisher, in review) “…there is little consensus as to what variables should be examined and what measures of of learning are most appropriate, making comparisons between studies difficult and inconclusive.” e.g., demographics (age, gender), previous experience, course design, instructor effectiveness, technical issues, levels of participation and collaboration, recommendation of course, desire to take add’l online courses.

  10. Evaluating Web-Based Instruction: Methods and Findings(Olson & Wisher, in review) Variables Studied: • Type of Course: Graduate (18%) vs. undergraduate courses (81%) • Level of Web Use: All-online (64%) vs. blended/mixed courses (34%) • Content area (e.g., math/engineering (27%), science/medicine (24%), distance ed (15%), social science/educ (12%), business (10%), etc.) Other data: a. Attrition data collected (34%) b. Comparison Group (59%)

  11. Different Goals… • Making connections • Appreciating different perspectives • Students as teachers • Greater depth of discussion • Fostering critical thinking online • Interactivity online

  12. Web Based Instruction CBI Kulik [8] CBI Liao [18] Average Effect Size .31 .32 .41 Number of Studies 11 97 46 Wisher’s Wish List • Effect size of .5 or higher in comparison to traditional classroom instruction.

  13. Electronic Conferencing: Quantitative Analyses • Usage patterns, # of messages, cases, responses • Length of case, thread, response • Average number of responses • Timing of cases, commenting, responses, etc. • Types of interactions (1:1; 1: many) • Data mining (logins, peak usage, location, session length, paths taken, messages/day/week)

  14. Electronic Conferencing: Qualitative Analyses • General: Observation Logs, Reflective interviews, Retrospective Analyses, Focus Groups • Specific: Semantic Trace Analyses, Talk/Dialogue Categories (Content talk, questioning, peer feedback, social acknowledgments, off task) • Emergent:Forms of Learning Assistance, Levels of Questioning, Degree of Perspective Taking, Case Quality, Participant Categories

  15. Overall frequency of interactions across chat categories (6,601 chats).

  16. Research on Instructors Online • If teacher-centered, less explore, engage, interact(Peck, and Laycock, 1992) • Informal, exploratory conversation fosters risktaking & knowledge sharing(Weedman, 1999) • Four Key Acts of Instructors: • pedagogical, managerial, technical, social • (Ashton, Roberts, & Teles, 1999) • Instructors Tend to Rely on Simple Tools • (Peffers & Bloom, 1999) • Job Varies--Plan, Interaction, Admin, Tchg • (McIsaac, Blocher, Mahes, & Vrasidas, 1999)

  17. Network Conferencing Interactivity (Rafaeli & Sudweeks, 1997) 1. > 50 percent of messages were reactive. 2. Only around 10 percent were truly interactive. 3. Most messages factual stmts or opinions 4. Frequent participators more reactive than low. 5. Interactive messages more opinions & humor. 6. More self-disclosure, involvement, & belonging. 7. Attracted to fun, open, frank, helpful, supportive environments.

  18. Starter Centered Interaction: Scattered Interaction (no starter): Week 4

  19. Collaborative Behaviors(Curtis & Lawson, 1997) • Most common were: (1) Planning, (2) Contributing, and (3) Seeking Input. • Other common events were: (4) Initiating activities, (5) Providing feedback, (6) Sharing knowledge • Few students challenge others or attempt to explain or elaborate • Recommend: using debates and modeling appropriate ways to challenge others

  20. Online Collaboration Behaviors by Categories (US and Finland)

  21. Dimensions of Learning Process(Henri, 1992) 1. Participation (rate, timing, duration of messages) 2. Interactivity (explicit interaction, implicit interaction, & independent comment) 3. Social Events (stmts unrelated to content) 4. Cognitive Events (e.g., clarifications, inferencing, judgment, and strategies) 5. Metacognitive Events

  22. Some Findings (see Hara, Bonk, & Angeli, 2000) • Social(in 26.7% of units coded) • social cues decreased as semester progressed; messages became less formal • Cognitive (in 81.7% of units) • More inferences & judgments than clarifications • Metacognitive(in 56% of units) • More reflections on exper & self-awareness • Some planning, eval, & regulation & self q’ing

  23. Surface Processing making judgments without justification, noting that one shares stated ideas or opinions repeating what said asking irrelevant q’s i.e., fragmented, narrow, and somewhat trite. In-depth Processing linked facts and ideas offered new information discussed advantages & disadvantages Made judgments supported by examples or justification i.e., more integrated, weighty, and refreshing. Surface vs. Deep Posts(Henri, 1992)

  24. Critical Thinking (Newman, Johnson, Webb & Cochrane, 1997) Used Garrison’s five-stage critical thinking model • Critical thinking in both CMC and FTF envir. • Depth of critical thinking higher in CMC envir. • More likely to bring in outside information • Link ideas and offer interpretations, • Generate important ideas and solutions. • FTF settings were better for generating new ideas and creatively exploring problems.

  25. Unjustified Statements (US) 24. Author: Katherine Date: Apr. 27 3:12 AM 1998 I agree with you that technology is definitely taking a large part in the classroom and will more so in the future… 25. Author: Jason Date: Apr. 28 1:47 PM 1998 I feel technology will never over take the role of the teacher...I feel however, this is just help us teachers... 26. Author: Daniel Date: Apr. 30 0:11 AM 1998 I believe that the role of the teacher is being changed by computers, but the computer will never totally replace the teacher... I believe that the computers will eventually make teaching easier for us and that most of the children's work will be done on computers. But I believe that there…

  26. ID Indicators Examples 1 Social acknowledgement/ Sharing/Feedback hHello, good to hear from you; I agree, good point, great idea 2 Unsupported statements (advice) II think you should try this…. This is what I would do… · 3 Questioning for clarification and extend dialogue cCould you give us more info? …explain what you mean by…? 4 Critical thinking, Reasoned thinking-judgment ·I disagree with X, because in class we discussed….I see the following disadvantages to this approach…. Indicators for the Quality of Students’ Dialogue(Angeli, Valanides, & Bonk, in press)

  27. Social Construction of Knowledge(Gunawardena, Lowe, & Anderson, 1997) • Five Stage Model 1. Share ideas, 2. Discovery of Idea Inconsistencies, 3. Negotiate Meaning/Areas Agree, 4. Test and Modify, 5. Phrase Agreements • In global debate, very task driven. • Dialogue remained at Phase I: sharing info

  28. Social Constructivism and Learning Communities Online (SCALCO) Scale.(Bonk & Wisher, 2000) ___ 1. The topics discussed online had real world relevance. ___ 2. The online environment encouraged me to question ideas and perspectives. ___ 3. I received useful feedback and mentoring from others. ___ 4. There was a sense of membership in the learning here. ___ 5. Instructors provided useful advice and feedback online. ___ 6. I had some personal control over course activities and discussion.

  29. Evaluation…

  30. 1. Formative Evaluation 2. Summative Evaluation 3. CIPP Model Evaluation (Context, Input, Process, Product) 4. Objectives-Oriented Eval 5. Marshall & Shriver's 5 Levels (Self, Materials, Curric, Modules, Transfer) 6. Bonk’s 8 Part Eval Plan 7. Kirkpatrick’s 4 Levels 8. Return on Invest Level 5 9. Level 6 budget and stability of team. 10. Level 7 e-learning champion(s) promoted 11. Cost/Benefit Analysis 12. Time to Competency 13. Time to Market 14. Return on Expectation 15. AEIOU: Accountability, Effectiveness, Impact, Organizational Context, U = Unintended Consequences 16. Consumer-Oriented Evaluation 16 Evaluation Methods

  31. My Evaluation Plan…

  32. Measures of Student Success(Focus groups, interviews, observations, surveys, exams, records) • Positive Feedback, Recommendations • Increased Comprehension, Achievement • High Retention in Program • Completion Rates or Course Attrition • Jobs Obtained, Internships • Enrollment Trends for Next Semester

  33. 1. Student Basic Quantitative • Grades, Achievement • Number of Posts • Participation • Computer Log Activity—peak usage, messages/day, time of task or in system • Attitude Surveys

  34. 1. Student High-End Success • Message complexity, depth, interactivity, q’ing • Collaboration skills • Problem finding/solving and critical thinking • Challenging and debating others • Case-based reasoning, critical thinking measures • Portfolios, performances, PBL activities

  35. 2. Instructor Success • High student evals; more signing up • High student completion rates • Utilize Web to share teaching • Course recognized in tenure decisions • Varies online feedback and assistance techniques

  36. 3. TrainingOutside Support • Training (FacultyTraining.net) • Courses & Certificates (JIU, e-education) • Reports, Newsletters, & Pubs • Aggregators of Info(CourseShare, Merlot) • Global Forums (FacultyOnline.com; GEN) • Resources, Guides/Tips, Link Collections, Online Journals, Library Resources

  37. 3. TrainingInside Support… • Instructional Consulting • Mentoring (strategic planning $) • Small Pots of Funding • Facilities • Summer and Year Round Workshops • Office of Distributed Learning • Colloquiums, Tech Showcases, Guest Speakers • Newsletters, guides, active learning grants, annual reports, faculty development, brown bags

  38. RIDIC5-ULO3US Model of Technology Use 4.Tasks (RIDIC): • Relevance • Individualization • Depth of Discussion • Interactivity • Collaboration-Control-Choice-Constructivistic-Community

  39. RIDIC5-ULO3US Model of Technology Use 5. Tech Tools (ULOUS): • Utility/Usable • Learner-Centeredness • Opportunities with Outsiders Online • Ultra Friendly • Supportive

  40. 6. Course Success • Few technological glitches/bugs • Adequate online support • Increasing enrollment trends • Course quality (interactivity rating) • Monies paid • Accepted by other programs

  41. 7. Online Program or Course Budget(i.e., how pay, how large is course, tech fees charged, # of courses, tuition rate, etc.) • Indirect Costs: learner disk space, phone, accreditation, integration with existing technology, library resources, on site orientation & tech training, faculty training, office space • Direct Costs: courseware, instructor, help desk, books, seat time, bandwidth and data communications, server, server back-up, course developers, postage

  42. 8. Institutional Success • E-Enrollments from • new students, alumni, existing students • Additional grants • Press, publication, partners, attention • Orientations, training, support materials • Faculty attitudes • Acceptable policies (ADA compliant)

  43. BestPractices?

  44. Part I. Best Practices:Who are some of the key scholars and players…???

  45. Karen Lazenby, Instructor Qualities, Deputy-Director, Telematic Learning and Education Innovation (now Director, Client Service Center)(University of Pretoria, Nov., 2001, klazenby@tsamail.trsa.ac.za) • Flexible to shift between roles • Patient, responsive • Friendly, positive, supportive • Limit lecture • Publish best student work • Set clear rules for posting and interaction • Involve outside experts

  46. Online Teaching SkillsThe Online Teacher, TAFE, Guy Kemshal-Bell (April, 2001) • Technical: email, chat, Web development • Facilitation: engaging, questioning, listening, feedback, providing support, managing discussion, team building, relationship building, motivating, positive attitude, innovative, risk taking • Managerial: planning, reviewing, monitoring, time management ================================== • From provider of content to designer of learning experiences. • From solitary teacher to team member

  47. Ron Oliver, Edith Cowen University, Collab & Constructivist Web Tasks(McLoughlin & Oliver, 1999; Oliver & McLoughlin, 1999)) • Apprenticeship: Q&A; Ask an Expert forums. • Case-Based and Simulated Learning: exchange remote views; enact events online. • Active Learning: Design Web pages & databases. • Reflective/Metacognitive Learning: Reflect in online journals, bulletin boards • Experiential Learning: Post (articulate ideas) to discussion groups • Authentic Learning: PBL, search databases

  48. John Hedberg, Singapore(was at Univ of Wollongong) RILE Monograph (2001) Online Envir. • Learner must be active in learning process • Provide variety of contexts and viewpoints • Learning is a process of construction • Immerse learners in authentic contexts • Reflective thinking is the ultimate goal • Learning involves social negotiation • Need to develop realistic strategic, pedagogical, & commercial models for online learning

  49. E-Moderating by Gilly Salmon(Salmon, (1999) Kogan Page; G.K.Salmon@open.ac.uk) • Know when to stay silent for a few days. • Close off unproductive conferences. • Variety of relevant conference topics. • Deal promptly with dominance, harassment. • Weave, archive, co-participate, acknowledge • Provide sparks or interesting comments. • Avoid directives and right answers. • Support others for e-moderator role.

More Related